Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0273796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273796

Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan pregnancy cohort study

Ikeola A Adeoye 1,2,*, Akinkunmi P Okekunle 3
Editor: Linglin Xie4
PMCID: PMC9477303  PMID: 36107862

Abstract

Background

Maternal nutrition is vital for an optimal intrauterine environment, foetal development, birth weight, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. We assessed the maternal dietary patterns using a data-driven technique and the associated sociodemographic factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Methodology

Dietary assessment was performed during the enrolment of participants for the Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study, a prospective cohort study, conducted among 1745 pregnant women enrolled early in pregnancy (≤ 20 weeks) at four comprehensive obstetric facilities within the Ibadan metropolis. A qualitative food frequency questionnaire was used to assess the pregnant population’s intake of food and drinks three months prior to their enrollment. We determined dietary patterns by applying principal component analysis with a varimax rotation. Multivariate analysis was used to investigate the association between sociodemographic factors and dietary patterns at 5% statistical significance.

Results

Mean age and gestational age at enrolment were 29.8 (± 5.3) years and 16.4 (±4.2) weeks, respectively. White rice was the most frequently consumed meal [794 (45.5%) daily, 898 (51.4%)] weekly in our study population. Five major dietary patterns were identified, and they accounted for 28.8% of the total variation: "protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages" (15.6%); "fruits" (4.1%); "typical diet with alcohol" (3.8%); "legumes" (2.8%), "refined grains" (2.6%). Maternal education and income were inversely associated with the consumption of a "protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages", "typical diet with alcohol", and "legumes" in a dose-response fashion. Also, employed women had a higher mean intake of fruits [adjusted β: 0.33 (0.02; 0.65) p = 0.040] compared with women without employment.

Conclusions and recommendation

We described five dietary patterns of pregnant women using a data-driven technique, principal component analysis, in Nigeria. We also identified factors influencing maternal dietary patterns, which can inform public health interventions, especially behavioural change communication during antenatal care.

Introduction

Nutrition and pregnancy are closely linked because maternal nutrition influences the intrauterine environment [1, 2]. Maternal nutrition is also an important modifiable determinant of foetal development, birth weight, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes [3]. For example, micronutrient deficiencies predominant among pregnant women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are risk factors for iron deficiency anaemia, low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction, and small gestational age [46]. However, excess energy intake is a risk factor for obesity, excessive gestation weight gain, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and macrosomia [7, 8] which are emerging public health concerns in LMICs.

Determining the overall significance of food and dietary consumption in a population can be complex, as a single nutrient approach (such as iron, iodine, and folate deficiencies) is limited because nutrients are not consumed singly in diets but rather in the company of several foods/nutrients over time. The overall food and dietary pattern assessment is a suitable methodology for summarising overall food and dietary consumption in populations [9]. Dietary patterns assessment is an objective evaluation of a population’s overall food and dietary exposure and is often used in determining the diet-disease association in nutrition epidemiology [10]. It utilises the amount, type, frequency or combination of different foods and beverages typically consumed over time [11] to provide a broader picture of the whole food and nutrient consumption [9, 10]. The dietary pattern approach has increasingly gained popularity in explaining the relationship between habitual diet and chronic disease risk. For instance, increasing quartiles of westernized diet were associated with the risk of coronary artery disease in the United States [12]. Although dietary patterns have received scant attention among pregnant women in LMICs such as Nigeria, certain foods have been associated with lowering the risk of some pregnancy complications. For example, diets high in whole grains, fish, fruits and vegetables have reportedly lowered the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus [13] and gestational hypertension [14].

However, the significance of overall dietary exposure in maternal and neonatal outcomes in LMICs, including in Nigeria, has not been thoroughly investigated. Also, the sociodemographic factors associated with maternal dietary patterns have not been identified in Nigeria. Identifying the overall food consumption and its associated factors among pregnant women is crucial for designing and implementing appropriate nutritional education, counselling and public health interventions for improving maternal and neonatal outcomes, particularly in the light of the escalating burden of maternal obesity in LMICs. Therefore, this study examined derived dietary patterns and the associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan using the Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting and population

The Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study (IbPCS) was a multicentre hospital-based study among women and their offspring aimed at assessing the association of maternal obesity and lifestyle factors with glycaemic control, gestational weight gain, pregnancy and postpartum outcomes in Ibadan, Nigeria. The study started in April 2018, and the baseline recruitment was completed in March 2019. Details of its methodology have been reported elsewhere [15]. It was a prospective cohort study that recruited 1745 pregnant women in early pregnancy (≤20 weeks) from the four health facilities within the Ibadan metropolis. The study was facility-based and conducted at four hospitals which are major maternal health care services providers and referral centres for comprehensive essential obstetric care within the Ibadan metropolis. These facilities are University College Hospital, Adeoyo Maternity Teaching Hospital, Jericho Specialist Hospital, and Saint Mary Catholic Hospital, Oluyoro, Ibadan.

Data collection procedures

Data were collected using pretested, interviewer-administered questionnaires and structured proforma at booking, third trimester, and delivery. Trained personnel conducted in-person interviews and physical examinations (using standard instruments) to assess information on sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics and dietary information from respondents at baseline after due informed consent for the study. Sociodemographic information assessed were age (in years), Yoruba ethnicity/ancestry (no or yes), level of education completed (at least primary, secondary or tertiary), average monthly income in naira—N (<N20,000; N20,000—N99,999 or ≥ N100,000), employment status (no, yes), religion (Christianity or Islam) and marital status (single or married). Also, respondents reported the number of birth experiences they have had prior to the current pregnancy and were classified as; nulliparous, 1–3 or ≥4.

Dietary assessment

Participants provided information on foods and drinks consumed in the last three months using an interviewer-administered qualitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The FFQ was designed from a sampling frame of foods and drinks reported by fifty randomly selected women of reproductive age using a 24-hour dietary recall. The FFQ was made of 67 food and drinks classified into ten food groups’ cereals’, ’starchy roots and tubers’, ’legumes’, ’meat, fish and poultry products, ’fruits’, ’vegetables’, ’milk’, ’sugar-sweetened beverages and drinks’, ’alcohol’ and ’pastries’. Details of the food and drink items in the FFQ and how they are classified into food groups are presented in Table 1. For each food or drink, participants reported the frequency of food consumption as follows: once daily, more than once daily (i.e. 2–3 times daily): once weekly, more than once weekly (i.e. 2–3 times weekly): once monthly, more than once monthly (i.e. 2–3 times monthly). The consumption frequency was harmonised into daily, weekly, monthly and rarely and transformed into the frequency of daily consumption.

Table 1. Food items and food groups used in the dietary patterns.
Food Groups Food Items
Cereals and Products: White rice, Jollof rice, Fried rice, Ofada rice, Spaghetti, White Bread, Wheat Bread, Wheat Semovita, Pap, Cornflakes, Oats, Golden Morn, Wheaterbix/All bran/Fruit fibre.
Starch Roots and Tubers Eba, Amala, Pounded yam, Fufu, Yam Porridge, Pando yam/, Boiled Yam, Boiled Potato
Legumes Stewed beans (Ewa riro), Moinmoin, Ekuru, Gbegiri, Cowpea–feregede
Meat and Fish Red meat–beef, Pork, Internal organs/offals–shaki, liver, lungs, Snails, Fish, Poultry–Chicken or turkey, Eggs
Fruits Pawpaw, Watermelon, Pineapple, Apples, Tangerine/tangelo, Cucumber, Avocado pear, English Pear, Oranges, Carrots, Mangoes, Banana, Agbalumo (cherry)
Vegetables Plain Vegetable soup–Okro, Ewedu, Efo Riro, Egusi Soup, Ogbonno / Groundnut /Afan/Oha Soup, Garden egg, Corn, Cabbage
Milk Cream Milk, Skimmed or low-fat milk, Soya Milk, Kunu
Sugar-Sweetened Drinks Soft drinks, Malt drinks, Fruit juice, Beverage–Milo, Bournvita, Tea, Coffee, Yoghurt.
Alcohol Beer, Palm wine, Whisky/dry Gin
Pastries Cake, puff-puff, doughnut, Buns, chinchin

Number of items in the scale: 67.

Scale reliability coefficient: 0.9101.

Dietary pattern analysis

The dietary pattern was derived using daily frequency consumption of 67 food items, with a reliability coefficient of 91.0%. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [1618], was applied to the correlation matrix of the daily consumption frequency of 67 food items. The factor loadings of foods and drinks were estimated using an orthogonal varimax rotated transformation for interpretability and extraction of uncorrelated components/factors. Five factors were retained based on an eigenvalue, a scree plot and interpretability. Factor loadings were calculated for each food item, and factors were interpreted as dietary patterns. Food or drink items having an absolute loading of ≥0.20 were retained in each dietary pattern. Factor scores of respondents in each dietary pattern were estimated, with higher factor scores typifying a level of closeness of the foods/drinks to the dietary patterns and vice versa. In order to determine the level of adherence to dietary patterns, respondents’ factor scores in each dietary pattern were ranked and stratified into ’low’ if the respondent factor score in a dietary pattern falls within the 50th percentile of the factor score distribution in this sample, otherwise ’high’ where the factor score is > 50th percentile.

Statistical analysis

Univariate analysis was performed in which categorical and continuous data were presented using percentages and mean (standard deviation). Also, by food groups the frequencies of commonly consumed food items were presented in composite bar graphs. The bivariate analysis examined the five dietary patterns’ sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics between low and high levels. Linear regression was used to estimate the beta (β) coefficient and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors and scores for each dietary pattern. Furthermore, only statistically significant variables in the unadjusted linear regression models were included in the final linear regression models to estimate the adjusted β coefficient and 95% CI of factors associated with each dietary pattern in this sample. All statistical analyses were carried out at a two-sided P < 0.05.

Ethical consideration

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Ibadan/University College Hospital (UI/UCH) Institutional Review Board (UI/EC/15/0060) and Oyo State Ministry of Health Ethical Committee (AD/13/479/710). Verbal and written informed consent was obtained from the respondents before recruitment into the study. The study protocol and conduct adhered to the principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Characteristics of study participants (Table 2) and their food consumption pattern (Fig 1)

Table 2. Characteristics of the study participants.

Characteristics N (frequency) Percentage (n/N)
Age group
< 20 28 1.6
20–29 844 48.3
30–39 804 46.1
≥ 40 years 70 4.0
Mean age (years) 29.8 (±5.3)
Mean gestational age (weeks) 16.4 (±4.6)
Parity
Nulliparous 761 43.8
2–4 882 50.7
≥ 5 95 5.5
Marital Status
Single 102 5.8
Married 1644 94.2
Level of Education
≤ Primary 49 2.8
Secondary 504 28.9
Tertiary 1189 68.3
Occupation
Employed 1557 89.2
Unemployed 189 10.5
Religion
Christianity 1011 58.1
Islam 730 41.9
Ethnicity
Yorubas 1565 89.8
Non-Yorubas 177 10.2
Income per month (Naira)
<20,000 583 33.4
20,000–99,999 501 28.7
≥ 100,000 108 6.2

Fig 1. Most commonly consumed food items by food groups in the Ibadan pregnancy cohort daily (green); weekly (purple).

Fig 1

The characteristics of the Ibadan pregnancy cohort are presented in Table 2. The mean age was 29.8 (± 5.3) years, and the mean gestational age at enrolment was 16.4 (±4.2) weeks. Also, the majority of the women were within 20–39 years 1648 (94.4%), married 1643 (94.1%), employed 1557 (89.2%), and of Yoruba ancestry 1565 (89.8%). About a third, 583 (33.4%) earned less than N20,000 per month (minimum wage), and 1011 (58.1%) reported being Christians.

White rice was the most frequently consumed meal (Fig 1) among the study participants: [794 (45.5%) daily, 898 (51.4%) weekly]. Legumes were consumed mostly on a weekly basis: stewed beans (Ewa riro) [158 (9.1%) daily & 1200 (68.7%) weekly] Bean Pudding (Moinmoin) [128 (7.3%) daily & 1176 (67.4) weekly] Beans cake (Akara) [158 (6.3%) daily & 1022 (58.5) weekly]. The commonest sources of animal protein were red meat: [816 (46.7%) daily & 612 (35.1%)] weekly, fish: [817 (46.8%) daily & 696 (39.9%) weekly], and eggs [645 (36.9%) daily & 831 (47.6%) weekly]. Plain vegetable soups, such as Okro, Ewedu, and Efo riro, were the most frequently consumed in the fruits and vegetable group.

Dietary pattern of study participants (Table 3)

Table 3. Factor loading matrix of 5 dietary patterns obtained by principal component analysis.

Food Items Protein rich diet and non-alcoholic beverages Fruits Typical diet with alcohol Legumes Refined grains
Jollof Rice - - - - 0.2815
Fried Rice - - - - 0.3537
Ofada Rice - - - - 0.2943
Cornflakes - - - - 0.3906
Oats - - - - 0.3184
Golden Morn - - - - 0.3031
Fufu - - 0.2044 - -
Pando Yam - - 0.2346 - -
Stewed beans - - - 0.3104 -
Bean Cake - - - 0.3762 -
Moinmoin - - - 0.3590 -
Ekuru - - - 0.3641 -
Gbegiri - - - 0.2435 -
Red Meat 0.2432 - - - -
Pork - - 0.2635 - -
Snail - - 0.2317 - -
Fish 0.2137 - - - -
Eggs 0.2025 - - - -
Pawpaw - 0.3101 - - -
Watermelon - 0.2918 - - -
Pineapple - 0.3001 - - -
Apple - 0.2887 - - -
Tangerine - 0.2634 - - -
Cucumber - 0.3107 - - -
Avocado Pear - 0.2621 - -
English Pear - 0.2563 - - -
Oranges - 0.2108 - - -
Carrot - 0.2892 - - -
Mangoes - 0.2612 - - -
Agbalumo - 0.2567 - - -
Plain vegetables 0.2543 - - - -
Oil-based soups - - 0.2337 - -
Cream milk 0.3059 - - - -
Soya Milk - - 0.2344 - -
Soft drinks 0.2771 - - - -
Malt drinks 0.2398 - - - -
Beverage 0.3116 - - - -
Tea 0.2244 - - - -
Beer - - 0.2067 - -
Palm wine - - 0.2358 - - 0.2388
Pastries 0.2079 - - - -
% Variance 15.62 4.12 3.79 2.79 2.57
%Cumulative variance 28.88

Varimax rotated factor loadings ≥ 0.2 presented.

The factor loading matrix of the dietary patterns obtained from the PCA is presented in Table 3. Five major dietary patterns, which accounted for 28.8% of the total variation, were identified in the study population. The first pattern, "protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages", accounted for the highest variance (15.6%) and was characterised by a high intake of red meat, fish, eggs, green vegetables, cream milk, and soft drinks, cocoa beverages, and pastries. The second pattern, "fruits", which accounted for 4.1% variance, was characterised by pawpaw, watermelon, pineapple, tangerine/tangelo, cucumber, avocado pear, carrots, mangoes and cherry. The "typical diet with alcohol" was the third pattern, characterised by pando yam, fermented cassava pudding (fufu), pork, snail, soya milk, beer, and palm wine. The fourth pattern, "legumes", explained a 2.8% variance and was characterised by stewed beans, bean cake, beans pudding (moinmoin) bland beans pudding (ekuru). The last pattern was termed "refined grains" and was characterised by high consumption of jollof rice, fried rice, ofada rice, corn flakes, oats and golden morn, explaining 2.6% of the total variance.

Association between maternal sociodemographic characteristics and dietary patterns (Tables 4 and 5)

Table 4. Association between participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and dietary patterns.

Protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages Fruits Typical diet with alcohol Legumes Refined grains
Low High p-value Low High p-value Low High p-value Low High p-value Low High p-value
Age group
< 20 13(39.4) 20 (60.6) 0.172 17 (51.5) 16 (48.5) 0.641 19 (57.6) 14 (42.4) 0.741 19 (57.6) 14 (42.4) 0.551 15 (45.4) 18 (54.6) 0.134
20–29 401 (48.2) 431 (51.8) 415 (49.9) 417 (50.1) 421 (50.6) 411 (49.4) 404 (48.6) 428 (51.4) 396 (47.6) 436 (52.4)
30–39 420 (51.7) 392 (48.3) 412 (50.7) 400 (49.3) 398 (49.0) 414 (51.0) 417 (51.4) 395 (48.7) 422 (52.0) 390 (48.0)
≥ 40 years 40 (57.4) 29 (42.7) 29 (42.7) 39 (57.4) 35 (51.5) 33 (48.5) 33 (48.5) 35 (51.5) 40 (58.8) 28 (41.2)
Parity
Nulliparous 391 (51.5) 369 (48.6) 0.360 378 (49.7) 382 (50.3) 0.982 398 (52.4) 362 (47.6) 0.165 404 (53.2) 356 (46.4) 0.027 371 (48.8) 389 (51.2) 0.080
2–4 427 (48.4) 455 (51.6) 442 (50.1) 440 (49.9) 422 (47.9) 460 (52.2) 425 (48.2) 457 (51.8) 443 (50.2) 439 (49.8)
≥ 5 51 (53.7) 44 (46.3) 48 (50.5) 47 (49.5) 50 (52.6) 45 (47.4) 39 (41.1) 56 (59.0) 58 (61.1) 37 (39.0)
Marital Status
Single 39 (38.2) 63 (61.8) 0.014 46 (45.1) 56 (54.9) 0.305 55 (53.9) 47 (46.1) 0.418 46 (45.1) 56 (54.9) 0.305 57 (55.9) 45 (44.1) 0.223
Married 834 (50.8) 809 (49.2) 827 (50.3) 816 (49.7) 818 (49.8) 825 (50.2) 827 (50.3) 816 (49.7) 816 (49.7) 827 (50.3)
Education
Primary or less 25(51.0) 24 (49.0) 0.004 28 (57.1) 21 (42.9) 0.595 22 (44.9) 27 (55.1) 0.153 18 (36.7) 31 (63.3) 0.001 34 (69.4) 15 (30.6) 0.001
Secondary 221 (43.9) 283 (56.2) 251 (49.8) 253 (50.2) 236 (46.8) 268 (53.2) 198 (39.3) 306 (60.7) 285 (56.6) 219 (43.5)
Tertiary or more 626 (52.7) 562 (47.3) 591 (49.8) 597 (50.3) 613 (51.6) 575 (48.4) 654 (55.1) 534 (45.0) 553 (46.6) 635 (53.5)
Employment Status
Unemployed 97(51.3) 92 (48.7) 0.706 106 (56.1) 83 (43.9) 0.078 106 (56.1) 83 (43.9) 0.078 107(56.6) 82 (43.4) 0.055 97(51.3) 92 (48.7) 0.706
Employed 776 (49.9) 780 (50.1) 767 (49.3) 789 (50.7) 767 (49.3) 789 (50.7) 766(49.2) 790 (50.8) 776 (49.9) 780 (50.1)
Religion
Christianity 525 (52.0) 485 (48.0) 0.067 521 (51.6) 489 (48.4) 0.149 483 (47.8) 527 (52.2) 0.032 561(55.5) 449(44.5) 0.001 468 (46.4) 542 (53.7) 0.001
Islam 345 (47.5) 381 (52.5) 349 (48.1) 377 (51.9) 385 (53.0) 341 (47.0) 309(42.6) 417(57.4) 399 (55.0) 327(45.0)
Ethnicity
Non-Yorubas 97 (54.5) 81 (45.5) 0.206 94 (52.8) 84 (47.2) 0.429 55 (30.9) 92 (69.1) 0.000 116(65.2) 62 (34.8) 0.001 83 (46.6) 95 (53.4) 0.326
Yorubas 774 (49.5) 790 (50.5) 777 (49.7) 787 (50.3) 816 (52.2) 748 (47.8) 755(48.3) 809 (51.7) 790 (50.5) 774 (49.5)
Income
<20,000 261 (44.8) 322 (55.2) 0.012 271 (46.5) 312 (53.5) 0.298 276 (47.3) 307 (52.7) 0.551 233 (40.0) 350 (60.0) 0.001 317 (54.4) 266 (45.6) 0.002
20,000–99,999 442 (52.4) 401 (47.6) 427 (50.7) 416 (49.4) 421 (49.9) 422 (50.1) 450 (53.4) 393 (46.6) 401 (47.6) 442 (52.4)
≥ 100,000 58 (53.7) 50 (46.3) 52 (48.2) 56 (51.9) 57 (52.8) 51 (47.2) 71 (65.7) 37 (34.3) 41 (38.0) 67 (62.0)

Table 5. Modelling the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and dietary patterns.

Protein-rich diet and non-alcoholic beverages Fruits Typical diet with alcohol
Unadjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Adjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Unadjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Adjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Unadjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value
Age group
< 20 Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
20–29 -0.35 (-1.12; 0.43) 0.383 0.49(-.49; 1.46) 0.327 -0.13 (-0.86; 0.61) 0.737 0.40 (-0.40; 1.19) 0.327 0.30 (-0.42; 1.02) 0.417
30–39 -0.47 (-1.25; 0.31) 0.237 0.60(-.39; 1.58) 0.234 -0.07 (-0.81; 0.66) 0.844 0.45 (-0.36; 1.26) 0.279 0.31 (-0.41; 1.03) 0.404
≥ 40 years - 0.80 (-1.72; 0.13) 0.093 0.61(-.51; 1.72) 0.284 -0.06(-0.94; 0.82) 0.887 0.37 (-0.54; 1.29) 0.423 0.17 (-1.18; 1.03) 0.699
Parity
Nulliparous Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
≥ 1 0.20 (-0.02; 0.41) 0.070 -0.08 (-0.31; 0.16) 0.521 -0.05 (-0.25; 0.15) 0.614 0.12 (-.49; 0.40) 0.216 0.31 (0.11; 0.50) 0.002
Marital Status
Single Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Married -.0.26 (-0.71; 0.19) 0.251 -0.84 (-1.38; 0.30) 0.002 -0.38 (-0.80; - 0.04) 0.078 -.04 (-0.48; 0.40) 0.847 0.07 (-0.35; 0.48) 0.743
Education
Primary or less Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Secondary -0.19 (-0.81; 0.59) 0.578 -0.10 (-0.80; 0.60) 0.773 -0.07 (-0.69; 0.55) 0.835 -.33 (-0.88; 0.22) 0.238 -0.74 (-1.34; -0.13) 0.017
Tertiary -0.63 (-1.27; 0.01) 0.052 -0.44 (-1.14; 0.25) 0.206 -0.14 (-0.75; 0.46) 0.643 -.77 (-1.32; -0.28) 0.005 -0.98 (-1.57; -0.39) 0.001
Employment Status
Unemployed Ref
Employed 0.31 (-0.03; 0.65) 0.072 0.18 (-0.49; 0.86) 0.590 0.33 (0.02; 0.65) 0.040 0.38 (-0.17; 0.93) 0.178 0.44 (0.12; 0.75) 0.006
Religion
Christianity Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Islam 0.40 (0.19; 0.62) 0.000 0.25 (0.01; 0.50) 0.039 0.16 (-0.05; 0.36) 0.131 0.27 (-0.07; 0.47) 0.007 -0.01 (-0.21;- 0.19) 0.900
Ethnicity
Non-Yorubas Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Yorubas 0.49 (0.15; 0.84) 0.005 -.62 (-.89; 0.12) 0.188 -0.03 (-0.36; 0.30) 0.867 0.14 (-0.17; 0.44) 0.386 -0.49 (-0.81; - 0.16) 0.003
Income
<20,000 Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
20,000–99,999 -0.51(-0.74; - 0.27) 0.001 -0.37(-0.62; - 0.12) 0.004 -0.20(-0.42; 0.02) 0.079 -.42(-0.63; - 0.23) <0.001 -0.38 (-0.60; -0.15) 0.001
≥ 100,000 -0.60(-1.06; - 0.14) 0.011 -0.38(-0.85; 0.09) 0.111 -0.18(-0.61; -0.26) 0.421 -.51(-0.89; -0.14) 0.007 -0.53 (-0.97; -0.09) 0.019
Typical Diet with alcohol Legumes Refined Cereals
Adjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Unadjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Adjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Unadjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value Adjusted β coefficient (95%CI) p-value
Age group
< 20 Ref Ref Ref Ref
20–29 0.35 (-.67; 1.37) 0.505 0.06 (-0.55; 0.68) 0.842 0.32 (-0.66; 1.29) 0.527 -0.02 (-.56; 0.53) 0.952
30–39 0.27 (-.76; 1.31) 0.610 0.03 (-0.59; 0.64) 0.937 0.18 (-0.81; - 1.17) 0.727 -0.08 (-0.63; 0.47) 0.779
≥ 40 years - 0.11 (-1.27; 1.06) 0.860 0.07(-0.67; 0.81) 0.849 0.01(-1.12; 1.13) 0.992 -0.05 (-071; 0.60) 0.871
Parity
Nulliparous Ref Ref Ref Ref
≥ 1 0.30 (0.08; - 0.52) 0.009 0.19 (0.02; 0.36) 0.028 0.14 (-0.35; 0.32) 0.115 0.02 (-0.13; 0.17) 0.776
Marital Status
Single Ref Ref Ref Ref
Married -.0.32 (-0.89; 0.25) 0.265 -0.76 (-0.43; 0.28) 0.676 -.16 (-.71; 0.38) 0.562 0.07 (-0.25; 0.38) 0.679
Education
Primary or less Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Secondary -0.69 (-1.35; -0.02) 0.043 -0.52 (-1.03; -0.01) 0.046 -0.36 (-0.90; 0.18) 0.194 0.29 (-0.18; 0.75) 0.223 0.27 (-0.19; 0.73) 0.253
Tertiary -0.83 (-1.49; -0.18) 0.013 -.1.11(-1.61; - 0.61) 0.001 -0.78 (-1.32; - 0.24) 0.005 0.54 (0.09; 0.99) 0.019 0.50 (-0.04; 0.95) 0.033
Employment Status
Unemployed Ref Ref
Employed 0.27 (-0.40; 0.95) 0.431 -0.32(-0.54; -0.59) 0.019 0.38 (-0.17; 0.993) 0.174 0.07 (- 0.17; 0.31) 0.578 0.967
Religion
Christianity Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Islam 0.19 (-.06; 0.44) 0.134 0.48 (0.31; 0.65) 0.001 0.28(0.92–0.47) 0.004 - 0.18 (-.33; - 0.26) 0.021 -0.10 (-0.26; 0.05) 0.196
Ethnicity
Non-Yorubas Ref Ref Ref Ref
Yorubas 0.31 (-0.08; 0.71) 0.115 0.42 (0.15; 0.70) 0.003 -.59 (-.97; 0.12) 0.002 -0.18 (-0.42; - 0.07) 0.156
Income
<20,000 Ref Ref Ref Ref
20,000–99,999 -0.32(-0.56; -0.08) 0.009 -0.59(-0.77; - 0.40) 0.001 -0.42(-0.62; 0.22) 0.004 0.07(-0.10; -0.24) 0.447
≥ 100,000 -0.47(-0.93–-0.02) 0.065 -0.74(-1.10; - 0.38) 0.001 -0.51(-0.88; - 0.14) 0.376 0.05 (-0.28; 0.38) 0.776

Table 4 displays the association between the sociodemographic factors and dietary patterns–a protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages and fruits and a typical diet with alcohol, legumes, and refined grains among study participants. The protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages, legumes pattern, and refined grains varied by education, income and religion. The consumption of a protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages (primary "40.8%" versus tertiary "30.3%") and legumes (primary "44.9%" versus tertiary "29.3%") was less among women with higher education compared with those with less education. On the other hand, women with high education consumed more refrained grains than less educated women: (primary "29.3%" versus tertiary "41.7%"). The dietary pattern also differed by religion, as Muslims had a higher consumption of a protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages (p = 0.001) and legumes (p = 0.001) but a lower intake of the typical diet with alcohol (p = 0.024). Christians consumed more refrained grains compared to Muslims (p = 0.001). Furthermore, those who earn <N20, 000 presented high consumption of a ’protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages’ than those earning more than N100 000; 322 (55.2%) vs 50 (46.3%). Similarly, legume consumption was higher among those who earn <N20, 000 than those who earn more than N100 000; 350 (60.0%) vs 37 (34.3%).

The modelling of the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and dietary patterns with the unadjusted and adjusted β and 95% CI are shown in Table 5. The intake of the typical diet with alcohol decreased with the woman’s level of education in a monotonic fashion: secondary school; adjusted β:-0.69 (-1.35; -0.02) p = 0.043 and tertiary education; adjusted β:-0.83 (-1.49; -0.018) p = 0.013 compared with women with primary school education only. Conversely, women with tertiary education had a higher mean dietary score for refined grains [adjusted β: 0.50 (- 0.04; 0.95) p = 0.033] compared with women with primary school education only. Income had an inverse association with the consumption of a protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages, a typical diet with alcohol, and legumes in a dose-response fashion.

Also, employed women had a higher mean of fruits [adjusted β: 0.33 (0.02; 0.65) p = 0.040] compared with women without employment. Parity had a significant association with the intake of a typical diet with an alcoholic beverage as multiparous women [adjusted β: 0.30 (0.08; 0.52) p = 0.009] had significantly higher consumption compared with nulliparous women. Muslims had a higher intake of legumes [adjusted β: 0.28 (- 0.92; 0.47) p = 0.004] and a protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverage [adjusted β: 0.25 (0.01; 0.50) p = 0.039] compared to Christians.

Discussion

Maternal nutrition is an important modifiable factor for optimal foetal development, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, and mitigating the future risk of non-communicable diseases among women of reproductive age [1921]. Therefore, understanding the dietary patterns of pregnant women, especially in LMIC societies undergoing epidemiologic and nutritional transitions such as Nigeria, is essential for predicting disease risk, formulating nutritional policies and providing nutritional interventions for pregnant women. We identified five dietary patterns: "protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverage", "fruits", and "typical diet with alcohol" legumes and "refined grains" among pregnant women in this study. We also ascertained the sociodemographic factors associated with maternal dietary patterns in Ibadan, Nigeria. Dietary pattern using factor analysis is gaining some attention in Nigeria but has been scarcely examined among pregnant women. Nwaru et al. (2012) examined the dietary pattern through a 24-hour dietary recall among mothers and children using Nigerian Demographic and Health Surveys data [22]. Unlike the food frequency questionnaire used in this study, the 24-hour dietary recall does not capture habitual dietary patterns. Recently researchers have begun examining the dietary pattern of specific Nigerian sub-populations, including school children [23] out-of-school adolescents [24], university undergraduates [25], and households [26].

The protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages explained the highest variance in the dietary pattern in our study population. This dietary pattern was essentially healthy and nutrient-dense because it provided multiple sources of macro and micronutrients from animal protein–fish, eggs and red meat–an essential nutrient for foetal growth and development. Green leafy vegetables are important sources of minerals and vitamins (vitamins A, C, K, and E, including calcium, iron, fibre and folate, which are essential for preventing neural tube defects. This pattern was also rich in milk, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and added sugars from pastries. Cream milk benefits women and the growing foetus because of the high calcium content required for solid bones and cell function.

Conversely, pregnant women should consume SSBs and added sugars in moderation or eliminate and replace them with low or no calorie-containing drinks such as water, particularly women that are obese [27]. SSBs have been associated with poor dietary quality [28], high energy intake [29], weight gain [30] and increased cardiometabolic risk that results from the spike of blood glucose and insulin levels, and high glycaemic load leading to decreased insulin sensitivity [3134]. Additionally, the protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages was inversely associated with income; women with lower income consumed a more protein-rich diet with non-alcoholic beverages than women with high income. This implies that these food items are likely inexpensive, readily accessible and available to women. An inverse association with socioeconomic status was also observed for the typical diet with alcoholic beverage and legumes dietary pattern.

The typical diet with alcohol consisted of commonly consumed food items in Nigeria, namely pando/pounded yam, fermented cassava puddling (fufu), pork, snail, oil-based soups, soya milk and importantly alcoholic drinks such as beer and palm wine. The alcoholic content makes it a harmful dietary pattern because of its teratogenic effects and the associated adverse pregnancy and developmental outcomes. For example, alcohol ingestion during pregnancy is the leading cause of preventable congenital anomalies in developed countries [35]. There is growing evidence of a rise in the intake of alcohol among women of reproductive age, especially in developing countries [36, 37]. In sub-Saharan Africa, the rise in alcohol consumption among women has been linked to urbanisation, economic growth, increasing social acceptability of the habit, changing gender roles and so on [37]. The WHO has stipulated that no amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy and that pregnant women should abstain from alcohol to prevent the associated adverse perinatal and developmental outcomes [38, 39]. Therefore, it is necessary to assess alcohol intake and encourage abstinence during antenatal care. This dietary pattern increased with parity, suggesting that women with higher parity than nulliparous women reported a higher intake of alcohol-containing diet. This association has been reported by other researchers in Africa [40, 41]. Additionally, socioeconomic status had a negative association with this dietary pattern, i.e., women with low education and income had a higher consumption of this alcohol-based diet, perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the adverse effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. A study in Uganda reported that the availability of cheap alcoholic drinks and their free distribution during celebrations make alcoholic intake common among low-income earning women [40]

The legumes and fruit patterns were homogenous groups explaining 4.1% and 2.8% variations, respectively. Legumes are plant proteins rich in dietary fibre with a low-glycaemic index (GI). Legumes are a healthy and inexpensive diet high in phytochemicals, fibre, proteins, minerals and vitamins [42]. Legumes enhance cardio-metabolic health by maintaining insulin sensitivity, improving lipid profiles, preventing insulin resistance [43], obesity [44], and cardiovascular risk scores [45] and these have been well reported in the literature. During pregnancy, legumes are beneficial in preventing gestational diabetes and excessive weight gain by maintaining postprandial glucose excursions, blood glucose and insulin levels. Legumes are, however, underutilised in our environment and often consumed by more impoverished individuals and families. Our study showed that legume consumption declined significantly in a dose-response fashion with the level of education and income. For example, the mean dietary score of legumes for women with tertiary education was much less [Adjusted β -.78 (p = 0.005)] compared with women with primary education or less. Some reasons for the underutilisation of legumes, especially among educated women, might be their prolonged cooking time and less palatability. It might also be associated with gastrointestinal side effects like increased flatulence, among others [46, 47]. For instance, legumes are regarded as the poor man’s meat [46], and our study shows higher consumption among low-income women. Hence the need to encourage women to consume legumes in various forms and find innovative ways of preparing them.

The fruit pattern was clearly identified in this study population. Fruits and vegetables are rich in vitamins and minerals: A, C, E, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, folic acid, fibre and antioxidants but low in calorie and dietary fat. The benefit of eating fruits and vegetables derived from their antioxidants, vitamins and phytochemicals [48]. Fruits were only significantly associated with women’s employment status, with employed women having a higher mean intake of fruits than unemployed women [Adjusted β 0.33 p = 0.040)]. This implies a lack of access to fruits because of cost; hence, only employed women can readily access fruits.

The refined grains pattern was high in rice and refined cereals, which have a high GI and can increase the risk of metabolic dysfunctions because they are lower in fibre and essential nutrients than whole grains [49, 50]. In this study, high intakes of refined cereals were associated with higher education and income. Refined cereals are usually fortified with micronutrients and quick to prepare but are high in added sugars and expensive [5153]. Hence we noted a higher level of consumption among women with higher education than those with primary education. Similarly, nulliparous women were also observed to have a high intake of refined grains, which may explain their susceptibility to obesity in subsequent pregnancies due to excessive weight gain and postpartum weight retention [54, 55].

This study is likely the first to describe the dietary pattern of pregnant women using a data-driven technique such as PCA in Nigeria. We also identified factors that can influence the dietary patterns of pregnant women in this population, which can inform public health interventions, especially behavioural change communication during antenatal care. These findings are likely applicable to women across all spectrums of reproductive age and crucial for designing public health policies and advisories to guide public health interventions for women’s health and quality of life in LMICs.

However, our study also has limitations. First, the dietary assessment was conducted using a qualitative food frequency questionnaire without quantifying portion sizes. Also, the dietary assessment was conducted at baseline; hence the study could not account for dietary changes during pregnancy. We relied on participants’ recollection of food consumption, and bias in reporting healthy eating habits is not unlikely, particularly among women with higher education. The other limitations are those associated with the complex hierarchical nature of data-driven techniques like factor analysis.[9, 22].

Conclusion

Prenatal nutrition impacts birth outcomes and is also an essential modifiable factor. We described five dietary patterns of pregnant women using a data-driven technique such as PCA in Nigeria. We also identified factors influencing maternal dietary patterns, which can inform public health policy and interventions, especially behavioural change communication during antenatal care.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our research team for their dedication, support and hard work–research nurses, laboratory scientists, research assistants Data personnel. We also wish to appreciate the health workers–doctors, nurses, and clinic staff as well as the record staff of the various health facilities for their cooperation and support in the four facilities: University College Hospital, Adeoyo Maternity Teaching Hospital, Jericho Specialist Hospital, and Saint Mary Catholic Hospital Oluyoro, Ibadan. We appreciate the input of CARTA (Consortium for Advanced Research Training for Africa) for all its training, care, support, oversight, funding and sponsorship efforts. The contributions of Dr Fagbamigbe’s input into the manuscript are acknowledged. The input of Prof Rasaki Sanusi and Dr Folake Samuel of the Department od Human Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Ibadan, in developing the food frequency questionnaire is appreciated.

Data Availability

Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because they contain potentially identifying and confidential information but are available from the UI/UCH Ethics Committee (uiuchec@gmail.com) on reasonable request if it meets the criteria for accessing confidential data.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA). CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No. G-19-57145), Sida (Grant No:54100113), Uppsala Monitoring Center, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), and by the Wellcome Trust [reference no. 107768/Z/15/Z] and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, with support from the Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa (DELTAS Africa) programme. Ikeola Adeoye is a CARTA PhD fellow. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Fellow. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

References

  • 1.Belkacemi L, Nelson DM, Desai M, Ross MG. Maternal Undernutrition Influences Placental-Fetal Development1. Biology of Reproduction. 2010;83(3):325–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marangoni F, Cetin I, Verduci E, Canzone G, Giovannini M, Scollo P, et al. Maternal Diet and Nutrient Requirements in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding. An Italian Consensus Document. Nutrients. 2016;8(10):629. doi: 10.3390/nu8100629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Berti C, Cetin I, Agostoni C, Desoye G, Devlieger R, Emmett PM, et al. Pregnancy and Infants’ Outcome: Nutritional and Metabolic Implications. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2016;56(1):82–91. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.745477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gete DG, Waller M, Mishra GD. Effects of maternal diets on preterm birth and low birth weight: a systematic review. The British journal of nutrition. 2020;123(4):446–61. doi: 10.1017/S0007114519002897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kjøllesdal MKR, Holmboe-Ottesen G. Dietary Patterns and Birth Weight-a Review. AIMS public health. 2014;1(4):211–25. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.4.211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Okubo H, Miyake Y, Sasaki S, Tanaka K, Murakami K, Hirota Y, et al. Maternal dietary patterns in pregnancy and fetal growth in Japan: the Osaka Maternal and Child Health Study. The British journal of nutrition. 2012;107(10):1526–33. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511004636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Catalano P, deMouzon SH. Maternal obesity and metabolic risk to the offspring: why lifestyle interventions may have not achieved the desired outcomes. International journal of obesity (2005). 2015;39(4):642–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chu SY, Callaghan WM, Kim SY, Schmid CH, Lau J, England LJ, et al. Maternal obesity and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care. 2007;30(8):2070–6. doi: 10.2337/dc06-2559a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hu FB. Dietary pattern analysis: a new direction in nutritional epidemiology. Current opinion in lipidology. 2002;13(1):3–9. doi: 10.1097/00041433-200202000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hu FB, Rimm E, Smith-Warner SA, Feskanich D, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary patterns assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(2):243–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/69.2.243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sanchez-Villegas A, Martínez de Lapiscina E. A Healthy Diet for Your Heart and Your Brain. 2018. p. 169–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hu FB. Plant-based foods and prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2003;78(3):544S–51S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/78.3.544S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shin D, Lee KW, Song WO. Dietary Patterns during Pregnancy Are Associated with Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Nutrients. 2015;7(11):9369–82. doi: 10.3390/nu7115472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schoenaker DA, Soedamah-Muthu SS, Mishra GD. The association between dietary factors and gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC medicine. 2014;12:157. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0157-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Adeoye I.A., Bamgboye E.A., Omigbodun A.O. The Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study (IbPCS), a Prospective Cohort Study Protocol. African journal of biomedical research. 2022;25(2):273–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lara KM, Levitan EB, Gutierrez OM, Shikany JM, Safford MM, Judd SE, et al. Dietary Patterns and Incident Heart Failure in U.S. Adults Without Known Coronary Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(16):2036–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stricker MD, Onland-Moret NC, Boer JMA, van der Schouw YT, Verschuren WMM, May AM, et al. Dietary patterns derived from principal component- and k-means cluster analysis: Long-term association with coronary heart disease and stroke. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2013;23(3):250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2012.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fung TT, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rexrode KM, Willett WC, Hu FB. Prospective Study of Major Dietary Patterns and Stroke Risk in Women. Stroke. 2004;35(9):2014–9. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000135762.89154.92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Goldsmith GA. Relationships between nutrition and pregnancy as observed in recent surveys in Newfoundland. American journal of public health and the nation’s health. 1950;40(8):953–9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.40.8.953 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Veena SR, Gale CR, Krishnaveni GV, Kehoe SH, Srinivasan K, Fall CH. Association between maternal nutritional status in pregnancy and offspring cognitive function during childhood and adolescence; a systematic review. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2016;16:220. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1011-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Koletzko B, Godfrey KM, Poston L, Szajewska H, van Goudoever JB, de Waard M, et al. Nutrition During Pregnancy, Lactation and Early Childhood and its Implications for Maternal and Long-Term Child Health: The Early Nutrition Project Recommendations. Annals of nutrition & metabolism. 2019;74(2):93–106. doi: 10.1159/000496471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nwaru BI, Onyeka IN, Ndiokwelu C, Esangbedo DO, Ngwu EK, Okolo SN. Maternal and child dietary patterns and their determinants in Nigeria. Maternal & child nutrition. 2015;11(3):283–96. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sanusi RA, Wang D, Ariyo O, Eyinla TE, Tassy M, Eldridge AL, et al. Food Sources of Key Nutrients, Meal and Dietary Patterns among Children Aged 4–13 Years in Ibadan, Nigeria: Findings from the 2019 Kids Nutrition and Health Study. Nutrients 2022;14(200). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.FO S, RA A, IA A, A O. Nutritional Status, Dietary Patterns and associated factors among out-of-school Adolescents in Ibadan, Nigeria. World Nutrition. 2021;12(1):51–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.P U, A O. Association of Dietary Patterns and Overweight among University Students Southeast, Nigeria Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences. 2020;41(1):15–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ikudayisi AA. Exploring Urban Dietary Pattern in Nigerian Households: A Case for Nutrient Adequacy Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports. 2020;13(4):24–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stookey JD, Constant F, Gardner CD, Popkin BM. Replacing sweetened caloric beverages with drinking water is associated with lower energy intake. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2007;15(12):3013–22. doi: 10.1038/oby.2007.359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gamba RJ, Leung CW, Petito L, Abrams B, Laraia BA. Sugar sweetened beverage consumption during pregnancy is associated with lower diet quality and greater total energy intake. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0215686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2006;84(2):274–88. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/84.1.274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2013;98(4):1084–102. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schulze MB, Liu S, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and dietary fiber intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes in younger and middle-aged women. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2004;80(2):348–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/80.2.348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.AlEssa HB, Ley SH, Rosner B, Malik VS, Willett WC, Campos H, et al. High Fiber and Low Starch Intakes Are Associated with Circulating Intermediate Biomarkers of Type 2 Diabetes among Women. The Journal of nutrition. 2016;146(2):306–17. doi: 10.3945/jn.115.219915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Xi B, Huang Y, Reilly KH, Li S, Zheng R, Barrio-Lopez MT, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of hypertension and CVD: a dose–response meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition. 2015;113(5):709–17. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514004383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després J-P, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes care. 2010;33(11):2477–83. doi: 10.2337/dc10-1079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Clarke ME, Gibbard WB. Overview of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders for mental health professionals. Can Child Adolesc Psychiatr Rev. 2003;12(3):57–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Popova S, Lange S, Probst C, Shield K, Kraicer-Melamed H, Ferreira-Borges C, et al. Actual and predicted prevalence of alcohol consumption during pregnancy in the WHO African Region. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2016;21(10):1209–39. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Addila AE, Bisetegn TA, Gete YK, Mengistu MY, Beyene GM. Alcohol consumption and its associated factors among pregnant women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis’ as given in the submission system. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy. 2020;15(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13011-020-00269-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.WHO. Global status report on alcohol and health World Health Organization. 2018.
  • 39.WHO. Global alcohol action plan 2022–2030. World Health Organization. 2021.
  • 40.Agiresaasi A, Nassanga G, Maina GW, Kiguli J, Nabiwemba E, Tumwesigye NM. Various forms of alcohol use and their predictors among pregnant women in post conflict northern Uganda: a cross sectional study. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy. 2021;16(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13011-020-00337-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Da Pilma Lekettey J, Dako-Gyeke P, Agyemang SA, Aikins M. Alcohol consumption among pregnant women in James Town Community, Accra, Ghana. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0384-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mitchell S, Kendall CCW, Augustin LSA, Sahye-Pudaruth S, Meija SB, Chiavaroli L, et al. Effect of Pulses as Part of a Low Glycemic Index Diet on Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Type 2 Diabetes. Canadian Journal of Diabetes. 2012;36(5):S19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gao R, Duff W, Chizen D, Zello GA, Chilibeck PD. The Effect of a Low Glycemic Index Pulse-Based Diet on Insulin Sensitivity, Insulin Resistance, Bone Resorption and Cardiovascular Risk Factors during Bed Rest. Nutrients. 2019;11(9). doi: 10.3390/nu11092012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tonstad S, Malik N, Haddad E. A high-fibre bean-rich diet versus a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics: the official journal of the British Dietetic Association. 2014;27 Suppl 2:109–16. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Augustin LS, Mitchell S, Sahye-Pudaruth S, Blanco Mejia S, et al. Effect of legumes as part of a low glycemic index diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of internal medicine. 2012;172(21):1653–60. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.70 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Popoola J, Ojuederie O, C O, A A. Neglected and Underutilized Legume Crops: Improvement and Future Prospects. Recent Advances in Grain Crops Research. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Subuola F WY, Kehinde T. Processing and Utilization of Legumes in the Tropics, Trends in Vital Food and Control Engineering,. 2012.
  • 48.Duthie SJ, Duthie GG, Russell WR, Kyle JAM, Macdiarmid JI, Rungapamestry V, et al. Effect of increasing fruit and vegetable intake by dietary intervention on nutritional biomarkers and attitudes to dietary change: a randomised trial. European journal of nutrition. 2018;57(5):1855–72. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1469-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Della Pepa G, Vetrani C, Vitale M, Riccardi G. Wholegrain Intake and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence from Epidemiological and Intervention Studies. Nutrients. 2018;10(9):1288. doi: 10.3390/nu10091288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Seal CJ, Brownlee IA. Whole-grain foods and chronic disease: evidence from epidemiological and intervention studies. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2015;74(3):313–9. doi: 10.1017/S0029665115002104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.McNulty H, Eaton-Evans J, Woulahan G, Strain J, editors. The contribution of breakfast to daily micronutrient intakes of adults in Great Britain. PROCEEDINGS-NUTRITION SOCIETY OF LONDON; 1994: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Albertson AM, Thompson D, Franko DL, Kleinman RE, Barton BA, Crockett SJ. Consumption of breakfast cereal is associated with positive health outcomes: evidence from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study. Nutrition research (New York, NY). 2008;28(11):744–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Williamson C. Breakfast cereals–why all the bad press? Nutrition Bulletin. 2010;35(1):30–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gillman MW. Interrupting Intergenerational Cycles of Maternal Obesity. Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series. 2016;85:59–69. doi: 10.1159/000439487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gunderson EP, Abrams B. Epidemiology of gestational weight gain and body weight changes after pregnancy. Epidemiologic reviews. 1999;21(2):261–75. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a018001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Linglin Xie

24 May 2022

PONE-D-22-06619Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adeoye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 7/23/2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: As you have described, prenatal nutrition impacts birth outcomes and is also an important factor that can potentially be modified. Your research will be beneficial in informing public health education, interventions, and policy.

Overall, the paper is well written and succinctly describes your study methods and results. However minor editing of the paper is needed, as in some places words are missing or there are minor grammatical errors (including in lines 91, 103, 127 (unknown what the * references), 130, 158, 163, 211, 360, 372, 374, 40-408, 414, 416, 420, 427, 450).

Specific recommendations:

• Lines 167-168: Please provide another sentence or two describing how the dietary information was transformed and harmonized

• Lines 218-224: To provide clarity for the reader, these results need to have consistency in the format of reporting, particularly related to use of the ( ) and [ ] and mentioning daily and weekly, for example use a format like this in reporting all the results in this paragraph:

o [294 (45.5% daily, 898 (51.4% weekly]

• Page 18, table 5: Please define “Exotic Diet with alcohol” the term “Exotic Diet” is not described in the manuscript

• Lines 389-390: The study did not document that lower education and lower income caused higher alcohol consumption due to low health literacy regarding the adverse effects of alcohol, please redraft the sentence

• Line 441: another potential bias is response bias, as the respondents may not have been entirely truthful or may have only wanted to report “good” eating habits in responding to the interviewers’ questions

• Line 459-462: identify specific research/manuscript contributions of each individual author

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0273796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jun 2022

POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS COMMENTS

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: As you have described, prenatal nutrition impacts birth outcomes and is also an important factor that can potentially be modified. Your research will be beneficial in informing public health education, interventions, and policy.

� Thank you Sir

Overall, the paper is well written and succinctly describes your study methods and results.

� We thank the reviewer for the kind comment.

However minor editing of the paper is needed, as in some places words are missing or there are minor grammatical errors (including in lines 91, 103, 127 (unknown what the * references), 130, 158, 163, 211, 360, 372, 374, 40-408, 414, 416, 420, 427, 450).

� We are grateful to the reviewer for succinctly pointing our attention to these grammatical errors. The entire manuscript has been revised to ensure clarity in expression and avoid grammatical errors

Specific recommendations:

• Lines 167-168: Please provide another sentence or two describing how the dietary information was transformed and harmonized

We have included the following statements in lines 207 - 237 of the revised manuscript to described how dietary information was harmonized in the revised manuscript. Please the statement below

“Details of the food and drink items in the FFQ and how they are classified into food groups are presented in Table 1. For each food or drink, participants reported the frequency of food consumption as follows: once daily, more than once daily (i.e. 2 -3 times daily): once weekly, more than once weekly (i.e. 2 -3 times weekly),): once monthly, more than once monthly (i.e. 2 -3 times monthly). The consumption frequency was harmonised into daily, weekly, monthly and rarely and transformed into the frequency of daily consumption. ”

• Lines 218-224: To provide clarity for the reader, these results need to have consistency in the format of reporting, particularly related to use of the ( ) and [ ] and mentioning daily and weekly, for example use a format like this in reporting all the results in this paragraph:

o [294 (45.5% daily, 898 (51.4% weekly]

� Edited

• Page 18, table 5: Please define “Exotic Diet with alcohol” the term “Exotic Diet” is not described in the manuscript

� The correct description here is “Typical diet with alcohol”.

� We have changed “Exotic Diet with alcohol” to “Typical diet with alcohol” in Table 5 of the revised manuscrip.

• Lines 389-390: The study did not document that lower education and lower income caused higher alcohol consumption due to low health literacy regarding the adverse effects of alcohol, please redraft the sentence

� We have revised the sentence in lines 571 - 582 of the revised manuscript rephrases the discussion between alcohol intake and literacy.

� Additionally, socioeconomic status had a negative association with this dietary pattern, i.e., women with low education and income had a higher consumption of this alcohol-based diet perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the adverse effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. A study in Uganda also reported that the availability of cheap alcoholic drinks and its free distribution during celebrations make alcoholic intake common among low income earning women (40)

• Line 441: another potential bias is response bias, as the respondents may not have been entirely truthful or may have only wanted to report “good” eating habits in responding to the interviewers’ questions

� We have included the following sentence in line 704 -706 the revised manuscript to itemize this unique bias suggested by the reviewer. Thank you.

• Line 459-462: identify specific research/manuscript contributions of each individual author

� We are grateful to the reviewer for this suggestion. We have included the following statements in lines 710 -713 of the revised manuscript to itemize the contribution of each individual author. Please see the statement below;

� Author’s contributions

� IAA designed and conducted the study and analyzed the data. IAA and APO interpreted the data and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. IAA and APO reviewed and critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_plos_dietary.docx

Decision Letter 1

Linglin Xie

28 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-06619R1Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adeoye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised manuscript and addressing the suggested comments. A number of edits were made, however because of the revisions the manuscript will again benefit from minor English editing.

I didn't complete a detailed language review of the entire manuscript, but here are some initial edits I identified in the revised manuscript and there may be others:

Line #93, believe the correct word is "other" vs. "over"

Line #103, the verb should be "were" vs. "was"

Line #106, delete "that

Lines #138-139 and #141-143 seem to repeat the same information

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0273796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Jul 2022

POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS COMMENTS

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised manuscript and addressing the suggested comments. A number of edits were made, however because of the revisions the manuscript will again benefit from minor English editing.

I didn't complete a detailed language review of the entire manuscript, but here are some initial edits I identified in the revised manuscript and there may be others:

Line #93, believe the correct word is "other" vs. "over"

• Replaced with other (line 92 page 4)

Line #103, the verb should be "were" vs. "was"

• Replaced with were (line 101 page 4)

Line #106, delete "that (line 104 page 4)

• deleted

Lines #138-139 and #141-143 seem to repeat

Attachment

Submitted filename: POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_R2 dietary.docx

Decision Letter 2

Linglin Xie

16 Aug 2022

Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study

PONE-D-22-06619R2

Dear Dr. Adeoye,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Linglin Xie

5 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-06619R2

Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study

Dear Dr. Adeoye:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_plos_dietary.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_R2 dietary.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because they contain potentially identifying and confidential information but are available from the UI/UCH Ethics Committee (uiuchec@gmail.com) on reasonable request if it meets the criteria for accessing confidential data.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES